Wednesday, April 4, 2018

It's the blogpost that's caught the imagination of a nation. If you haven't seen it yet, take a few moments to read the legendary Ruth Wishart's reply to her namesake Pete Wishart, explaining her reasons for concluding that the independence referendum must be held by March 2019. You can read it HERE.

The problem we have is that events,or rather the lack of,are being dictated by Theresa Dolittle and the Brexiteers.Those Scots who do not see that being taken out of the EU by English votes is not a good enough reason to part company with England,will never see a good reason to vote for independence.No successful general has ever waited to be 100% sure of success before launching a military campaign.Independence is about choices and our ability to exercise those choices.Clearly,within the UK union,Scotland's choices are limited and in many cases completely ignored.That is what our next campaign must be based on,not the colour of money or our ability to threaten Russia.

There is no doubt about it, we must generate a situation where Scotland is in control of its destiny. All the 'Yes' groups reforming ought to spark the SG into moving things forward in expectation.

I think we will see a repeat of 1979/1997 with another referendum giving us the victory by a margin 65:35. This would be especially so if we separated the EU issue by going for EEA/EFTA and an eventual call for a debate on full EU membership.

Ever since October 2014 I have always maintained that the next indyref would be in 2018 and it would be 58.3% Yes, 41.7 No.Looks like I will be out by a few months but hey, I can live with that. I feel the indyref and the result is unstoppable now.

I admit that after 2014 I was of the defeatist Wishart (Pete) opinion. 20 further years of the Tories kicking us while we are down was required for the Scottish electorate to get a clue, for the generational shift away from small-b British nationalism to manifest itself, for independence supporters to work out how to effectively combat state media and implement that plan.

I still kind of feel that it is too soon - the people I meet in middle-class work situations are if anything even more vocally unionist than before - my parents and older relatives even more entrenched - perhaps I need to attend a rally or two to cheer myself up! - but Brexit has smashed that 20-year timetable.

And I am convinced of your argument James that if you have a mandate for something you believe in and nobody is going to get hurt, you've got to use it or be condemnned forever to irrelevance.

They have to request a section 30 order, which may be difficult or impossible to obtain. There may also be legal wrangles to contend with. If they get the green light to proceed then there still have to be negotiations as to the franchise, the wording of the question and so on. Then the official campaigns need to be formed, have time to raise funds, and then there needs to be a campaigning period of around 12 weeks, I think. It's not achievable in 6 months.

I don't agree on several points. Simply say from the start that if there is no Article 30 forthcoming they will proceed with a consultative referendum -- and then hold it one way or the other. One will then be given or not. The other issues will, as with last time, be settle in fairly short order. Raising funds had better not be done after the referendum is announced although I expect funds would pour in. I would say 6 months is doable, but about the minimum. On the other hand, I believe autumn of 2019 would also work as a date, no later than September.

On the contrary, Ms Sturgeon said she would make a decision by October and the Greens are committed to supporting a referendum. Patrick Harvey has already said so. No one is talking about bypassing parliament.

There is no 'frenzy'. Using demeaning or insulting terms does not make your argument any more convincing.

Pete Wishart's logic is completely flawed in more ways than one.The most apparent failing is that if the polls ever showed a majorityfor Independence London would never allow it be held.And I don't mean just withholding a Section 30 order more likean Act of Indivisible Union rushed through Westminister.

It isn't the pre 1707 parliament restored. It's a devolved body within the UK state.

The time for the Act of 'indivisible union' was when the unionist MPs controlled 90 to 100% of Scottish seats i.e. from 311 years ago up until 3 years ago. They missed the boat on that and they'd now struggle to make it stick.

The Acts of Union 1800 were parallel acts passed in Londonand Dublin to dissolve the Irish Parliament. Parallel acts were necessary because the Irish Constitution required it.This is not the case with the Scottish Parliament, an Act passed in London can dissolve it.

It was my impression that the various secretaries of state for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can simply suspend the devolved administrations at will. They have certainly done it often enough in Northern Ireland.

Mundell, suspending the Scottish parliament by decree. That would be something!

There is no possibility of Scotland being independent before Brexit. We are out of the EU on independence irrespective of Brexit. We'd have to join after independence, as the Commission and successive EU Presidents have said on multiple occasions.

It's no big deal. We'd seek to rejoin the single market immediately on independence via the EFTA route. There's no reason that would take more than a year. With the Four Freedoms protected we could then take our time deciding whether to join the EU. Austria, Finland, Portugal and the UK all joined the EU from EFTA.

The EU is neither here nor there. What matters is the single market, because that's where all the actual advantages of Europe are. It's the single market that provides freedom of movement, residence and trade.

Well that's a good reason for sticking with Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein in in EFTA EEA, rather than moving to EU EEA! If we don't go on to join the EU then the opt-outs question doesn't arise.

Kirsty Hughes, who is very committed to EU membership, doesn't think that the budget rebate would transfer across to Scotland. It would be a matter for any accession negotiation. I guess we'd have a decent case for maintaining the Schengen opt-out as Ireland and the UK do, to maintain the UK Common Travel Area.

This article by Hughes and Locke is worth a read as it sets out the practical steps, and timescale that joining the EU would entail. Personally I think that route is much too slow, because it's likely to mean that we'd be out of the single market for an extended period. All the likely economic damage would be done. We need to avoid that.

EFTA accession is a great deal simpler, and potentially faster. And EFTA can give us a way back to single market membership. See the EEA Agreement Article 128 - to be a member of the EEA (the single market) a state must be either an EU member, or and EFTA member.

So much of this depends on the nature of the final brexit deal. If it's reasonable then I don't think there is any way the people of Scotland would agree to back any further tumult, especially in relation to Europe.

Agreed. There's a decent article on City AM noting that Brexit may not be the obvious catastrophe that was predicted, or at least not in a way that impacts electorally.

With the huge caveat that the case for Independence is inherent in the fact of Scottish Nationhood, not in any external factor. Brexit is a distraction, except in that it dramatically proves that Scottish interests and views will never be respected in the UK.

If Brexit happens it would de-risk the European issue as regards Scottish independence.

Independence would no longer be about being 'threatened' with being out of the EU - we'd be out in any case due to Brexit. People would laugh at a Ruth Davidson et al if they tried that tosh again.

Independence allows us offer a positive choice to join the EU, or preferably EFTA.

The fact that we are all talking about this and there is palpable frustration should set alarm bells ringing in the SNP. We need something to inspire the movement to push the vote up. The vote will not magically go up the longer we wait. The Eu vote was 2 years ago. It's not moved and hardly moved since 2014.

That tells me only a campaign and indy ref 2 date can change the percentages. But Ruth is right. We only have 10 months to get the referendum.

The SNP need to just announce it and be dammed. 2 years waiting on the shirt tails of the Tories is not a good look. We look like beggars when we should be takers. It's our decision not the Tories.

It's interesting that, although there are barely any independence supporters on social media agreeing with Wishart's ridiculous position, it seems to be tough to find elected SNP representatives openly disagreeing with it. Has anyone found any?

We should absolutely go for it. And if we lose, so what! We go for it again, and again until we win. What country ever won their freedom after giving up after the first, or even second defeat? None. Not a single one. The SNP need to remember what they are supposed to be about. And Nicola needs to stop worrying about her political career being over if we do lose.

I think the United Kingdom Prime Minister gets paid a higher pension if he/she passes certain milestones in office - more for 5+ years, yet more for 10+ years etc. Has anyone ever looked into it to see if a similar scheme applies to the Scottish First Minister? Because if it does then there could well be the reason for the hesitancy in calling indyref2. Nicola Sturgeon is not a vastly rich woman.